From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web12.4084.1587568878068943489 for ; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:21:19 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=ZFW9c3aV; spf=pass (domain: redhat.com, ip: 207.211.31.81, mailfrom: lersek@redhat.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1587568877; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=e9n3Jjnmb1CqT4rP/4+taa3x/MZ23Xu0M2hsb5aSjOI=; b=ZFW9c3aVzCRt9Z6gzQnXITcS/kghh38AMo5umbIwfmIe9Ntyg137Xsj3AZwcxjBuSwHRFF U3dVuC5wX6/qJe5dtY+Y1Ovuv/hVDpPFevjDthGTqrdJ5TaI293q/Y7ZkcstdPHDLDgyMg TGn07CXScNrRAlWEqlXW8Q3Ue4FSzZQ= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-205-v8lpv1TdNnabWyrELlo4JQ-1; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:21:09 -0400 X-MC-Unique: v8lpv1TdNnabWyrELlo4JQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C88928010FB; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:21:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lacos-laptop-7.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-113-154.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.113.154]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D82F0600D2; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:21:05 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] Add BhyvePkg, to support the bhyve hypervisor To: Rebecca Cran , devel@edk2.groups.io Cc: Jordan Justen , Ard Biesheuvel , Leif Lindholm , Michael Kinney , Andrew Fish , Peter Grehan References: <20200421030955.114850-1-rebecca@bsdio.com> From: "Laszlo Ersek" Message-ID: <18aaab30-4960-c923-5895-bd097008e677@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:21:04 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 04/21/20 17:38, Rebecca Cran wrote: > On 4/21/20 9:27 AM, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > >> >> (1) For example, I can't find the patch that adds >> "BhyvePkg/BhyvePkgX64.dsc", in spite of the file being listed in the >> cumulative diffstat below. > > That's in the "Add BhyvePkg" patch. I'm very sorry; for some reason, I don't have your v3 4/6 patch in my list folder, nor my INBOX! I don't understand why. I can see the patch in at least one mailing list archive. > >> (2) I also don't really understand why v2 / v3 have been posted, given >> that the bhyve-specific ResetSystemLib instance that I suggested under >> v1, based on your proposed code, still depends on the ResetSystemLib >> cleanup series that I posted. The idea is that you would base the new >> bhyve ResetSystemLib instance on my ResetSystemLib refactoring. > > Since the changes to ResetSystemLib aren't required for this series and > will require rework, I removed them. > >> Because my series has not been merged yet, for such a bhyve rebase you'd >> have to pick up my patches from the list temporarily. That's a 100% >> usable approach, but then, this v3 series of yours does not seem to >> introduce *any* ResetSystemLib instance. Have you decided to postpone >> that work for later? > > > Sorry, yes I have decided to postpone those changes since as you say I'd > need to pick up your patches from the list. OK, that makes sense -- but, without the ResetSystemLib instance, are you able to boot the BhyvePkg platform firmware in a bhyve guest? Does (for example) the "reset -c" UEFI Shell command work? >> In the end, please wait until I get around merging the ResetSystemLib >> refactoring . > > I'd prefer not to, since introducing BhyvePkg doesn't depend on the > ResetSystemLib changes. Could this series not be committed, then a > subsequent commit be made to use the ResetSystemLib changes? Yes, this ordering makes 100% sense -- assuming your v3 series passes review and is *functional enough*. Does the ResetSystem runtime service work, in v3? Thanks! (And I'm sorry about my slow responses, it's... difficult. :/) Laszlo